Libertarian is a bit of an umbrella term, if you wish to inspire discussion on the matter you might consider being a slight bit more in depth with your views. So far I can tell you have a certain scepticism toward an authoritarian government, and are a proponent of individual freedoms and non-aggression... But that's pretty much all the term Libertarian can be taken to mean without further information...

So to get a better picture of your views, are you a right-libertarian, or left-libertarian? How far do you want to go? Do you want to dissolve all social institutions, and state controlled police force, public schools, etc... Or where do your views lie?

I'm generally what one would consider mildly libertarian, albeit I prefer to use the term classically liberal (I'm not a huge fan of terms getting redefined for no good reasons and then others having to adapt to them).

That said, there's a reason I put "mildly" there and it's the old divide between ideology and practicality. The stronger elements of my classical liberal (and at times even anarcho-capitalist) leanings are Utopian; they describe what would be my perfect world. But if someone were to flick a switch and tomorrow every system changed to that one? There'd be absolute chaos and vast suffering. As such I temper my views and consider it an on-going process; we need small steps towards that end goal while society as a whole adapts to the changes.

Yes, in my perfect utopian world everyone would be allowed to do what they want, and not pay taxes, and those more fortunate would be nice and pleasant people, willing to help those less fortunate, those with disabilites and other disadvantages, and there would be no need for government..

But we live in an ugly world, where those more fortunate tend to be those with less of a sense of empathy. We live in a world where if there is no one obligated to defend your liberties, someone with more resources will come and take those liberties away from you, since it's their liberty to be doing so. It's a beautiful idea, but the history of mankind has shown again and again that when the strong are allowed to take advantage of the weak, they will do so.

Libertarian is a bit of an umbrella term, if you wish to inspire discussion on the matter you might consider being a slight bit more in depth with your views. So far I can tell you have a certain scepticism toward an authoritarian government, and are a proponent of individual freedoms and non-aggression... But that's pretty much all the term Libertarian can be taken to mean without further information...

So to get a better picture of your views, are you a right-libertarian, or left-libertarian? How far do you want to go? Do you want to dissolve all social institutions, and state controlled police force, public schools, etc... Or where do your views lie?

I am a right libertarian, a strong believer in free markets. On a good day, I'm perhaps a Hayekian Minarchist. I think that social institutions should be privatized, and ideally public education only extant as local libraries and state systems (in the U.S.). The police, if a governmental institution, should be governed democratically with their own constitution, and perhaps even privatization would be better. I think the military, diplomacy, legistlation, courts, and emergency services.

Yes, in my perfect utopian world everyone would be allowed to do what they want, and not pay taxes, and those more fortunate would be nice and pleasant people, willing to help those less fortunate, those with disabilites and other disadvantages, and there would be no need for government..

But we live in an ugly world, where those more fortunate tend to be those with less of a sense of empathy. We live in a world where if there is no one obligated to defend your liberties, someone with more resources will come and take those liberties away from you, since it's their liberty to be doing so. It's a beautiful idea, but the history of mankind has shown again and again that when the strong are allowed to take advantage of the weak, they will do so.

This is purely a social matter; in pre-modern history, these abusive institutions were governments. But recently, with government providing the social safety net, businessmen are inclined to find reasons to hate welfare of all forms. Remove government, and individuals will rise up and aid communities. Many ask why this did not occur in the gilded age- but recent historical scholarship finds evidence that gilded age factory labor was promoted artificially by government, with funds pumped by Washington, London, and Berlin into their industrialist cronies.

Truly, if it was socially made unacceptable not to voluntarily support the poor, I garuntee the poor would be in a better place, especially since local activists could work personally with others.

A transition from modern government to that of my ideal, I admit, would be rocky, and if it was not gradual, many would suffer. But market forces are beautiful things, and especially since government inefficiency would be eliminated.

I'm generally what one would consider mildly libertarian, albeit I prefer to use the term classically liberal (I'm not a huge fan of terms getting redefined for no good reasons and then others having to adapt to them).

That said, there's a reason I put "mildly" there and it's the old divide between ideology and practicality. The stronger elements of my classical liberal (and at times even anarcho-capitalist) leanings are Utopian; they describe what would be my perfect world. But if someone were to flick a switch and tomorrow every system changed to that one? There'd be absolute chaos and vast suffering. As such I temper my views and consider it an on-going process; we need small steps towards that end goal while society as a whole adapts to the changes.

My thoughts exactly! Libertarianism is the only real way, to me, to preserve freedom in the long run. Modern government, as Fredrich said, is on a Road to Serfdom.

This is purely a social matter; in pre-modern history, these abusive institutions were governments. But recently, with government providing the social safety net, businessmen are inclined to find reasons to hate welfare of all forms. Remove government, and individuals will rise up and aid communities. Many ask why this did not occur in the gilded age- but recent historical scholarship finds evidence that gilded age factory labor was promoted artificially by government, with funds pumped by Washington, London, and Berlin into their industrialist cronies.

Truly, if it was socially made unacceptable not to voluntarily support the poor, I garuntee the poor would be in a better place, especially since local activists could work personally with others.

A transition from modern government to that of my ideal, I admit, would be rocky, and if it was not gradual, many would suffer. But market forces are beautiful things, and especially since government inefficiency would be eliminated.

So billionaires are just kicking the rest of us in the teeth because they're salty about the welfare? I find that difficult to swallow, in all honesty. You seem to accept the fact that crooked businessmen exist. What makes you think that these crooked businessmen will suddenly disappear when there's no government to regulate them? Historians and Evolutionary biologists would be inclined to disagree. Something being "Socially unacceptable" is clearly not a deterrent enough for some people. Never has been. Never will be.

But supposing that it actually served as some kind of a deterrent (which it isn't) How do you propose we make it socially unacceptable? How does that transition happen? Because really: If you can't show how it would suddenly become 'socially unacceptable' to not support the poor. It never has been, no one expects me to support the poor, no one expected anyone to support the poor prior to any kind of welfare, and no one, at any point of the history, expected individuals to support the poor out of the good of their hearts. There are good people, who support the poor, but in no way is it, or has it ever been unacceptable not to do so. So unless you can propose to me, a feasible way, as to how such a social environment would be achieved (and don't tell me it would automatically happen, because it doesn't) or the whole argument falls apart before we even begin to discuss it.

And finally, to the one thing we have an actual example of actually happening at certain points in history: The free, unregulated market. It' been tried, and it has caused problems all over the place, with scams and unsafe products being flogged away with little care of the damage done. While it has been financially successful in some instances It has also been financially unsuccessful and extremely unstable in others, with no perceived benefit over a regulated market.

No matter how many whine about it, governmental regulation often corrects problems that an unregulated free market could not. One example is health care regulations, such as enforcing credentialing for physicians to ensure they're not some nut in a lab coat; making sure pharmaceuticals have the ingredients they say they do and are relatively safe, AND that they work as intended; and ERs being required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Another is related to public health: how would consumers be able to determine which food vendors would be safe (and therefore, want to exchange capital with) in a festival experiencing bacterial contamination? And why should businesses take on the risk of preventing epidemics?

There are many things I perceive as good ideal in Libertarianism, some of which I agree could make for good policies, but the idea of running a country on libertarian values seems to me to be slightly naive.

So billionaires are just kicking the rest of us in the teeth because they're salty about the welfare? I find that difficult to swallow, in all honesty. You seem to accept the fact that crooked businessmen exist. What makes you think that these crooked businessmen will suddenly disappear when there's no government to regulate them? Historians and Evolutionary biologists would be inclined to disagree. Something being "Socially unacceptable" is clearly not a deterrent enough for some people. Never has been. Never will be.

But supposing that it actually served as some kind of a deterrent (which it isn't) How do you propose we make it socially unacceptable? How does that transition happen? Because really: If you can't show how it would suddenly become 'socially unacceptable' to not support the poor. It never has been, no one expects me to support the poor, no one expected anyone to support the poor prior to any kind of welfare, and no one, at any point of the history, expected individuals to support the poor out of the good of their hearts. There are good people, who support the poor, but in no way is it, or has it ever been unacceptable not to do so. So unless you can propose to me, a feasible way, as to how such a social environment would be achieved (and don't tell me it would automatically happen, because it doesn't) or the whole argument falls apart before we even begin to discuss it.

And finally, to the one thing we have an actual example of actually happening at certain points in history: The free, unregulated market. It' been tried, and it has caused problems all over the place, with scams and unsafe products being flogged away with little care of the damage done. While it has been financially successful in some instances It has also been financially unsuccessful and extremely unstable in others, with no perceived benefit over a regulated market.

No matter how many whine about it, governmental regulation often corrects problems that an unregulated free market could not. One example is health care regulations, such as enforcing credentialing for physicians to ensure they're not some nut in a lab coat; making sure pharmaceuticals have the ingredients they say they do and are relatively safe, AND that they work as intended; and ERs being required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Another is related to public health: how would consumers be able to determine which food vendors would be safe (and therefore, want to exchange capital with) in a festival experiencing bacterial contamination? And why should businesses take on the risk of preventing epidemics?

There are many things I perceive as good ideal in Libertarianism, some of which I agree could make for good policies, but the idea of running a country on libertarian values seems to me to be slightly naive.

To your first point, I believe you over-exaggerate the power that "billionaires" truly have. Mr. Bernie Sanders in particular does a good job of blaming these "billionaires" for every national woe in existence; however, billionaires are, in the long run, indispensable to the modern economy. The manipulation of money causes the growth of business and thus prosperity in general.

You also exaggerate the condition of the poor prior to the welfare state. The ills of the industrial revolution, I remind you, were based in the state! The state pumped huge amounts of money into industrialist pockets, it's an indisputable fact, and thus without the state, things would have progressed moderately, and the poor would have not been so likely to suffer. The golden age of the free market was quite good for the poor! The 1770s to the 1830s were a time of little suffering, prosperity; local welfare! The only class suffering, mind you, was the slaves, who were enslaved because of statist actions to insulate an institution that was unconstitutional.

The problem is not in this "social transition" that you speak of; welfarists are unanimous in their conviction that some kind of welfare is totally necessary. If a necessary function is turned over (slowly, I remind you, with welfare funds instead going into negative income tax or subsidies for private charity) to the private sector, then the private sector will act!

Activists can get laws changed, can bend corporations to their knees; as Henry David Thoreau thought, a true democracy is built on individual fighting, not artificial government peace. So, the middle class, the rich, and the businessmen will form a new welfare state, if it is necessary. Perhaps, however, the welfare state wouldn't even be needed! Economic depressions, according to Von Mises' theory of macroeconomics, are directly caused by government intervention creating artificial wealth. His theory predicted, years prior to their occurance, the stagflation of the late 60s and 70s, the recession of the early 80s, the .com bubble, the housing crisis, and the Great Recession.

And finally, to your last point: I would first like you to cite me a point in history that a free market has truly existed. I've proven to you it is not the gilded age. It has given us beautiful technology, medicine, a booming economy; but it's never been freed. On your point about regulation: you provide the example of a festival, and yet governments do not have regulations at festivals! Last I checked, the regulation that chicken should be always fully cooked has never resulted in agents inspecting festival stands! Festivals are often odd, unsafe in general. Yet when person A eats from the fried rat stand and falls horribly ill, Persons B-Z decide not to eat there. The stand closes, and the other stands decide to make sure their food is cooked out of fear of public action. Think of it this way: if the government didn't regulate, would nobody ever go to six flags? No! Many would still go, and Six Flags would have to keep maintaining equipment to high standards in order to prevent public outcry. And then when they slip up, mass boycotts! Riots, pox upon the businessmen who failed the market! Six Flags, as a corporation, would be forced to reevaluate its private regulations.

To your first point, I believe you over-exaggerate the power that "billionaires" truly have. Mr. Bernie Sanders in particular does a good job of blaming these "billionaires" for every national woe in existence; however, billionaires are, in the long run, indispensable to the modern economy. The manipulation of money causes the growth of business and thus prosperity in general.

The existence of super rich in no way benefits the economy. The money doesn't trickle from the super rich to the economy, but rather, the other way around. It isn't a coincidence that across the developed world, the larger the number of super rich are, the larger the number of extremely poor in the same country.

Quote

You also exaggerate the condition of the poor prior to the welfare state. The ills of the industrial revolution, I remind you, were based in the state! The state pumped huge amounts of money into industrialist pockets, it's an indisputable fact, and thus without the state, things would have progressed moderately, and the poor would have not been so likely to suffer. The golden age of the free market was quite good for the poor! The 1770s to the 1830s were a time of little suffering, prosperity; local welfare! The only class suffering, mind you, was the slaves, who were enslaved because of statist actions to insulate an institution that was unconstitutional.

Ah, and so you think that without the slavery of 1770s to 1830s the people who benefited from slavery would have been just as well off as they were without? And in any case, the assertion is just plainly mistaken. Privacy was a rare privilege for all but the wealthy. People, including children at home and strangers in inns, routinely shared beds. Native Americans were very, very poor once whites had tricked them out of their lands on which they hunted, farmed and lived. There was no fall-back like charity or shelters. If you couldn't raise enough food, you could literally starve to death and seldom would anyone be available to offer help even if they could afford to provide such help. The expectation was that everyone in a family worked as hard as possible to complete that tasks to secure necessary food, shelter and materials needed for survival. If you somehow manage to paint this period as 'good' for the poor in America, then I will have to agree to disagree. Economy, however has existed much longer than the United States has, and I can go all the way down to the beginning of civilization and keep pointing out that the poor have never been treated well by the rich, never as well as they are today. And today they are treated as well as they are because of the various government run organizations, not because of private people and their willing charity.

Quote

The problem is not in this "social transition" that you speak of; welfarists are unanimous in their conviction that some kind of welfare is totally necessary. If a necessary function is turned over (slowly, I remind you, with welfare funds instead going into negative income tax or subsidies for private charity) to the private sector, then the private sector will act!

Statement without substance. There is no evidence that this will happen.

Quote

Activists can get laws changed, can bend corporations to their knees; as Henry David Thoreau thought, a true democracy is built on individual fighting, not artificial government peace. So, the middle class, the rich, and the businessmen will form a new welfare state, if it is necessary. Perhaps, however, the welfare state wouldn't even be needed! Economic depressions, according to Von Mises' theory of macroeconomics, are directly caused by government intervention creating artificial wealth. His theory predicted, years prior to their occurance, the stagflation of the late 60s and 70s, the recession of the early 80s, the .com bubble, the housing crisis, and the Great Recession.

Activists can get laws changed, granted there is a government to change those laws. Without the government intervention, there is no laws, nor is there anyone upholding the law. And if the rich and the powerful were to create a new welfare state, what is the goal exactly. Isn't welfare state exactly in the root of the problem in your opinion? And really, you are taking up Ludwig von Mises? A firm proponent of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." The man who said of his theory that "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." I could just as well be trying to argue with a theology, and I'm not going down that route... If you're going to debate with me by the means of name dropping, at least try not to drop names of people who believed that inequality was natural, and therefore it should be upheld, and that "The right to occupy public office is denied women less by the legal limitations of their rights than by the peculiarities of their sexual character."

Quote

And finally, to your last point: I would first like you to cite me a point in history that a free market has truly existed. I've proven to you it is not the gilded age. It has given us beautiful technology, medicine, a booming economy; but it's never been freed. On your point about regulation: you provide the example of a festival, and yet governments do not have regulations at festivals! Last I checked, the regulation that chicken should be always fully cooked has never resulted in agents inspecting festival stands! Festivals are often odd, unsafe in general. Yet when person A eats from the fried rat stand and falls horribly ill, Persons B-Z decide not to eat there. The stand closes, and the other stands decide to make sure their food is cooked out of fear of public action. Think of it this way: if the government didn't regulate, would nobody ever go to six flags? No! Many would still go, and Six Flags would have to keep maintaining equipment to high standards in order to prevent public outcry. And then when they slip up, mass boycotts! Riots, pox upon the businessmen who failed the market! Six Flags, as a corporation, would be forced to reevaluate its private regulations.

Define Free market, to you a lot of examples of free market don't seem to strike a chord as a 'real free market' so it's hard for me to get there without knowing what you are exactly looking for here. And truly, a person doesn't need to fall terribly ill from something for it to be extremely unhealthy for them. Many substances are banned from use due to long term health effects, yet it would be incredibly difficult to tell where these health effects were coming from, if the person selling the product had no responsibility of informing people what was included in it, so a person could continue to sell a toxic food product without anyone knowing better as the issue would be extremely difficult to pinpoint without regulation.

Six flags could easily sell food with a toxic ingredient if government wasn't allowed to come knocking and checking there was nothing toxic in the food. Again, if you eat something that causes your health to detoriate over a long period of time, you're not going to be like "Well, this premature aging is probably because of those burgers I ate at Six Flags.

Chalk in milk, as it makes it seem creamier, sulfate of iron in tea and beer as it makes the color nicer, lead chromate in mustard, copper carbonate, lead sulphate, bisulphate of mercury, and Venetian lead in sugar confectionery and chocolate; lead in wine and cider... No of these cause you to die immediately, make the food cheaper to make, and preserve, and without regulation, you can guarantee they'd still be in our foods.

So we should set up and fund a group of people to collate data on, say, public health issues but prevent them from taking any measures to present imminent problems that they are by definition best placed to notice other than shouting loudly?

That doesn't seem right. Either I'm misunderstanding or your position doesn't make sense.

So we should set up and fund a group of people to collate data on, say, public health issues but prevent them from taking any measures to present imminent problems that they are by definition best placed to notice other than shouting loudly?

That doesn't seem right. Either I'm misunderstanding or your position doesn't make sense.

Greetings ArtVandelay, and welcome to E! I have a few questions for you on your views and such. This is the only one I have so far, but more might be forthcoming in the future:

Left-Right dichotomy: You described yourself as a right-libertarian in an earlier post. To my understanding the phrasing is very different than the US Left-Right, in that Left-Libertarianism is more akin to traditional anarchist (anti-State, anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchy), whereas right-libertarianism is more akin to the laissez-faire capitalism many Americans know of libertarianism.

However, I know of many Libertarians (capitalist kind) who aren't very fond of the left-right spectrum for a variety of reasons. Even if they feel that one Party or ideology is a lesser evil, they still feel that they're different enough from both liberalism and conservatism as they're understood today to fit their views.

On the other hand, there's quite a few "conservative libertarians" out there, who tend to agree with right-wing US policies albeit with some variations (isolationist foreign policy, "same-sex marriage is unbiblical but the gov't shouldn't be involved, etc"). On a similar note, it seems that what Libertarians (or those who self-identify as such) who do get involved in US politics and pick a major Party are more often Republicans than Democrats, such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Greg Gutfeld, Glenn Beck, etc.

What are your opinions on this? Do you feel that capitalist Libertarianism isn't a good match for the left-right spectrum? Do you feel that US right-wing groups have more in common with Libertarians, or just as different from your ideology as leftists?

Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand is a very popular figure in Libertarian circles. The feelings weren't mutual, and she viewed them as appropriating her ideology in a flawed manner (I can't recall the specifics). Her ideology of Objectivism shares much in common with Libertarianism, but often goes beyond to cover religious issues and other things which not all Libertarians necessarily ascribe to (such as Rand Paul, who's a Christian but enjoyed her work). Generally speaking, I found Libertarians who were full-on Objectivists who loved her books and agreed with her on most issues; Libertarians who liked her ideas if not her literature; ones who liked her books and ideas but not her religious views, and so on and so forth.

First off, the traditional left-right spectrum is one of the things that libertarians really dislike a lot. The problem with Left-Right is that it presupposes no views on social issues, political power. Most libertarians that I would consider true libertarians are "Left" on social policies: personal liberties, legalizing marijuana, ending the War on Drugs (many supporting full legalization), ending marriage as a state institution or allowing it to apply to anyone (regardless of sexuality), ending domestic surveillance, and staying out of foreign wars. They agree with most American Democrats on these social issues. This is why, in order for libertarianism to be differentiated from Left and Right, we use the four quadrant political spectrum, which has an economic and social axis. Economically, libertarians are right, believing in less government intervention, free markets, free trade, deregulation, and ending inflation. Many are further right than most Republicans, believing strongly in ending government debt. Despite this, most libertarians believe in some form of social welfare; just not Federal Welfare, although Milton Friedman (libertarian economist) proposed that a linearly progressive income tax which goes into the negative could easily be considered libertarian welfare. A libertarians are strongly anti-state and many are anti-hierarchy, believing that social divisions which many liberals defend with anger (racism, sexism, transphobia) are best left to be solved with gradual education and free-market society: allowing society to run its course.Most also love guns, have an appreciation for revolution and the Confederacy as an anti-statist movement, and Austrian Economics.

In sum, it is an ideology predicated on the notion that the maximization of Liberty (individual and economic) is the only form of government sustainable without devolving into serfdom. Most understand that the poor should be helped; they just believe that the government would not do so as well as private charities and individuals, who (without the government aiding drastically) would be flocked to by moral and liberal minded individuals, expanding local care for the needy.

To your next point, many libertarians do tend to be closer to modern neoconservatives than liberal Democrats. This is largely in part due to the weight pulled by economic policy in the current election cycle. Barack Obama, largely unpopular with libertarians due to his support for the established wealthy through corporate welfare, his expansion of government intervention in the economy, his failure to end the war on drugs and the war on terror, his anti-gun convictions, Obamacare, and the massive debt he has incurred. Libertarians, strongly affected by his imperialist policy abroad and Keynesian pump-priming, flocked to the G.O.P., supporting first Ron Paul and then Rand Paul. Both Paul's are much further socially-left than the establishment Republicans, but are barely libertarian with their support for Social Security, Government Prison time increases, and strong anti-abortion stances. However, the American left (out of social stances to differentiate them) continues to push further left, with Mr. Sander's mis-titled "democratic socialism" (which is not socialism for a number of reasons). Most, thus, side with the right for economic purposes, favoring neither Obama's actions nor the regressive Bush tax cuts, but something based in Liberty rather than personal favor. It is for these reasons that they largely support the Paul's, especially with Trump, Cruz, and Rubio's war hawk rhetoric and seeming inability to attract any independent voters.

To your final point, I will speak first for the libertarian community: Along with, perhaps, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, John Locke, Lysander Spooner, and Henry David Thoreau, Ayn Rand is regarded as one of the most influential writers to the libertarian movement. Objectivism is the philosophical "wing" to Rand's opinions, essentially assigning different values to people and assuming that this will be their value in society. It involves the objective view of the worth of work, industry, religion, and the individual. Non-objectivist Libertarians recognize, unlike objectivists, that the world is full of too many variables to effectively make objective these aspects of worth.

I am a right libertarian, a strong believer in free markets. On a good day, I'm perhaps a Hayekian Minarchist. I think that social institutions should be privatized, and ideally public education only extant as local libraries and state systems (in the U.S.). The police, if a governmental institution, should be governed democratically with their own constitution, and perhaps even privatization would be better. I think the military, diplomacy, legistlation, courts, and emergency services.

And on the inevitable roads question; Privatize!

Have you ever heard the song, 'Sixteen Tons'? Do you know what it's about?

Libertarianism is feudalism repackaged. Mises was a Hapsburg loyalist for crying out loud. There is a reason your school of thought is called the Austrian school. And now we have the whole 'dark enlightenment' crap going on.

We've been through this sort of 'tax revolt' from England to Japan, and the story of where it ends up is the same. Everywhere, throughout history.

And you know, it could even have a chance to work if people were free to choose their dictator. If moving was as easy as leaving or returning to Elliquiy or any other forum is. However, you do not want that, either. Have to keep those mobility restrictions in place to lock people into a location and whomever they happen to be suffering under.

And you know, it could even have a chance to work if people were free to choose their dictator. If moving was as easy as leaving or returning to Elliquiy or any other forum is. However, you do not want that, either. Have to keep those mobility restrictions in place to lock people into a location and whomever they happen to be suffering under.

I think this is actually one of the more interesting areas within Libertarian (for which read right Libertarian in this post) thought and frankly, somewhat of a blind spot that many gloss over.

A Libertarian state isn't an anarchist one (using "state" colloquially; it's debatable whether an anarchist "state" would technically constitute a state); the state does still exist, albeit in a much reduced form. The traditional explanation of what the state should do is borrowed from the classical liberal idea of a "night-watchman state" (interesting point; the term was originally coined to make such a state look silly but instead was claimed by the very thinkers its author hoped to ridicule); one that is primarily interested in preventing theft/other property crimes and national security. And securing borders is clearly on some level a national security issue.

The counter point to that is you'll find few more powerful tools for the state then getting to decide who can actually be within the state at a given time. Who can come, who can work, how long they can stay etc etc. It strikes me that in a state that could be considered Libertarian the borders would be very close to open and only in the case of direct and obvious national security risks could someone be denied entry and even then it might get a bit iffy.

But how many modern Libertarian thinkers or politicians are pushing for open borders and the almost completely free movement of people? Relatively few, if any.

Have you ever heard the song, 'Sixteen Tons'? Do you know what it's about?

Libertarianism is feudalism repackaged. Mises was a Hapsburg loyalist for crying out loud. There is a reason your school of thought is called the Austrian school. And now we have the whole 'dark enlightenment' crap going on.

We've been through this sort of 'tax revolt' from England to Japan, and the story of where it ends up is the same. Everywhere, throughout history.

And you know, it could even have a chance to work if people were free to choose their dictator. If moving was as easy as leaving or returning to Elliquiy or any other forum is. However, you do not want that, either. Have to keep those mobility restrictions in place to lock people into a location and whomever they happen to be suffering under.

-I've not heard this song.-I do not believe this at all to be the case. This argument does not take into account the core principles of libertarianism; free markets, less economic and social restrictions. It is the belief that socialism is feudalism. -I don't care what Mises thought about Habsburgs nor what it should be called: it's called the Austrian school because two Austrians, Mises and Hayek, championed it as an alternative to Keynesian economics.-I don't believe in mobility restrictions, hence the "minarchist" tacked on there.-Please, ask me a question about Austrian Econ and libertarianism, as you perhaps do not understand it.

I think this is actually one of the more interesting areas within Libertarian (for which read right Libertarian in this post) thought and frankly, somewhat of a blind spot that many gloss over.

A Libertarian state isn't an anarchist one (using "state" colloquially; it's debatable whether an anarchist "state" would technically constitute a state); the state does still exist, albeit in a much reduced form. The traditional explanation of what the state should do is borrowed from the classical liberal idea of a "night-watchman state" (interesting point; the term was originally coined to make such a state look silly but instead was claimed by the very thinkers its author hoped to ridicule); one that is primarily interested in preventing theft/other property crimes and national security. And securing borders is clearly on some level a national security issue.

The counter point to that is you'll find few more powerful tools for the state then getting to decide who can actually be within the state at a given time. Who can come, who can work, how long they can stay etc etc. It strikes me that in a state that could be considered Libertarian the borders would be very close to open and only in the case of direct and obvious national security risks could someone be denied entry and even then it might get a bit iffy.

But how many modern Libertarian thinkers or politicians are pushing for open borders and the almost completely free movement of people? Relatively few, if any.

The issue of immigration is different depending on the degree to which one is a libertarian; anarcho-capitalists believe in totally open borders. Most libertarians, like myself, believe that streamlining the immigration process would effectively allow the right kinds of people in (ones who would pay taxes and be able to work in some capacity).

-I've not heard this song.-I do not believe this at all to be the case. This argument does not take into account the core principles of libertarianism; free markets, less economic and social restrictions. It is the belief that socialism is feudalism.

On the second, no, Socialism is defined as: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

My problem is that the libertarian movement is not based on Wealth of Nations, it is based on the fantasy novel Atlas Shrugged.

Socialisim as a political theory gave us things such as cheap power & water, laws stating your child cannot be sold into slavery to cover your debts, the $100 a month for food distributed to a family of five who cannot afford to feed themselves because rent with private utilities is $775 a month, mom had a stroke last year, therefore treatments cost 200 a month, and dad only brings in about 650 a month...But go on. tell that man he's lazy for accepting food stamps and heating assistance while trying to get into a collage with a federal loan. Then pickup your teeth, file your lawsuit, and never get paid because the landlord gets there first every month.

Now imagine when his kids grow up and vote... That is the reason we've moved away from Lazze~Fare economics. The Public makes the laws. If The Public says no debtor prisons, then we have no debtor prisons, if they say no child labor, we have no child labor. If The Public say feed the poor, then we feed the poor. If the public says make as much money as possible but don't poison my kids doing it... then that is EXACTLY what the regulations say to do.

We happen to like private enterprise here in the US, our lax regulations reflect that. Some fairly large businesses have been abusing the system since it was loosened in the 80's, thus the public gets pissed and those regulations tighten. It's the natural order of things.

On the second, no, Socialism is defined as: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Socialisim as a political theory gave us things such as cheap power & water, laws stating your child cannot be sold into slavery to cover your debts, the $100 a month for food distributed to a family of five who cannot afford to feed themselves because rent with private utilities is $775 a month, mom had a stroke last year, therefore treatments cost 200 a month, and dad only brings in about 650 a month...

I'm not sure I follow this.

For the sake of argument let's use the definition of socialism you supply (personally I'd be pedantic and stick to collective ownership, rather than governmental, of the means of production but it makes little difference in this case). Where are the examples of socialist countries being the originators (or even one of the main drivers) for the changes you mention? Who were the socialist politicians and thinkers who brought those changes through?

Simply arguing for more welfare, more protective labour laws or things of that nature within a system that allows the private ownership of capital doesn't make one a socialist any more than opposing the militarization of the police and the state's ability to spy on its own citizens makes one an anarchist or libertarian.

-I do not believe this at all to be the case. This argument does not take into account the core principles of libertarianism; free markets, less economic and social restrictions. It is the belief that socialism is feudalism.

The principles of libertarianism are irrelevant. You can believe a billion dollars will magically appear in front of you, does that make it happen?

Libertarianism does not now, nor has it ever, taken into account the capture of state functions by private parties. To Mises and his compatriots, this is fine - because it returns things to their proper state

Just as owners of Roman villas became feudal lords, just as 'Pathfinders' in Japan became Daimyos, once private individuals become states in and of themselves, they become the state. De facto if not de jure. The Japanese built a fantastic prison for their Emperor, and devoted an entire wing of government to its maintenance.

Quote

-I don't care what Mises thought about Habsburgs nor what it should be called: it's called the Austrian school because two Austrians, Mises and Hayek, championed it as an alternative to Keynesian economics.

It's an alternative to democracy. Go read some of Hayek's quotes on democracy too and tell me what picture it paints. Temporary dictatorships as a transitional period? Where have we seen that before?

The issue of immigration is different depending on the degree to which one is a libertarian; anarcho-capitalists believe in totally open borders. Most libertarians, like myself, believe that streamlining the immigration process would effectively allow the right kinds of people in (ones who would pay taxes and be able to work in some capacity).

I should probably clarify - emigration ought to be a right, with no barriers imposed by state or private institutions. This includes things like tolls on roads that might financially burden a family wishing to relocate.

Immigration policy can be set by the individual microstates in question.